Basically what you have is a small ruling class, that survives by manipulating a majority of people by playing on their desire for freebies and handouts, and their lack of a strong moral/religious foundation.

I had high hopes that the one thing Obama would do well is help to right the catastrophic inner city dead-beat dad situation by way of the bully pulpit. Sadly he's spent all his air time on partisan campaigning.

Stop watching FOX news. If your argument had any validity, why does everyone bitch about where the jobs have gone? The maury povich type of people make up a small percentage of the population, despite whatever you hear from glenn beck or bill o'reilly. They and their ilk are the biggest exploiters we have, with the exception of possibly whoever is making Hugh Grant romantic comedies.

Your first paragraph is a straw man. Nobody is asking for handouts. Welfare is very small portion of the budget.

We've had bailouts/handouts to tons of government-picked corporations, unions, states and brand new entitlements. Almost the entire budget is some form of welfare.

Neither the Republican or Democratic party are beacons of morality. I doubt even 1 in million people would disagree there, so bringing it up is rather irrelevant.

Ironman wrote:

For a supposedly "small government" person, you sure seem to be all about the government doing all kinds of stuff. You seem to want them all up in people's business.

You apparently missed the key point I was making. I specifically said I was hoping he would use the bully pulpit to address the issue. I don't want more oppressive federal intervention - I want inspirational leadership.

Ironman wrote:

Conservatives seem to think "bipartisan" means doing things their way

If all the votes for a bill are from one party, it's partisan. If it's unanimous, it's bipartisan. (There's a big gray area in the middle of course.)

Stop watching FOX news. If your argument had any validity, why does everyone bitch about where the jobs have gone? The maury povich type of people make up a small percentage of the population, despite whatever you hear from glenn beck or bill o'reilly. They and their ilk are the biggest exploiters we have, with the exception of possibly whoever is making Hugh Grant romantic comedies.

I don't even know where to begin with that. If you're serious, then stop watching Maury Povich (is that even still on?) and watch a variety of news sources.

Keep in mind that the blue blood Republicans want their own freebies. They want tax cuts without having to take a principled stand on spending cuts, leading to higher deficits.

We've had bailouts/handouts to tons of government-picked corporations, unions, states and brand new entitlements.

Bailouts were needed at the time, and is not the norm. They should have been a lone, and neither administration really handled it very well. There were plenty of better ways to do it. The rest of the stuff if peanuts.

Quote:

Almost the entire budget is some form of welfare.

What a cop-out, and a big load of crap too. It's military, SS, medicare in that order. That's almost the entire budget. Don't forget though, people are paying in to SS and medicare, as are businesses.

Quote:

Neither the Republican or Democratic party are beacons of morality. I doubt even 1 in million people would disagree there, so bringing it up is rather irrelevant.

Well people who think they are morally superior, yet do all the things they demonize others for is very hypocritical and rather ironic too. I guess the irony is lost on you.

Quote:

You apparently missed the key point I was making. I specifically said I was hoping he would use the bully pulpit to address the issue. I don't want more oppressive federal intervention - I want inspirational leadership.

Nope, I got that, still not his job. Bill Cosby has been working on that, we'll let him take it. He is from one of those type of neighborhoods after all and Obama is not. Obama was inspirational there for a while. I think once he saw the truly ugly side of politics there was no more inspiration left.

Quote:

If all the votes for a bill are from one party, it's partisan. If it's unanimous, it's bipartisan. (There's a big gray area in the middle of course.)

Nope that just means one party is trying to block everything the other party does regardless of what it is. You can't really be seen to compromise with people after calling them socialist fascist communist Nazi terrorists.

Stop watching FOX news. If your argument had any validity, why does everyone bitch about where the jobs have gone? The maury povich type of people make up a small percentage of the population, despite whatever you hear from glenn beck or bill o'reilly. They and their ilk are the biggest exploiters we have, with the exception of possibly whoever is making Hugh Grant romantic comedies.

I don't even know where to begin with that. If you're serious, then stop watching Maury Povich (is that even still on?) and watch a variety of news sources.

Keep in mind that the blue blood Republicans want their own freebies. They want tax cuts without having to take a principled stand on spending cuts, leading to higher deficits.

He was using that as an example. Nobody said anything about being a fan of daytime talk shows. It's very interesting that you reframe it in that way.

I agree with the rest. Republicans are very bad at math. I remember the days when I thought trickle down worked..... It looks so good on paper, yet nothing ever really trickles down. Not being the world police anymore would knock around 30% off the spending. Letting the tax cuts expire would generate $700B to $1T. You should have a nice surplus at that point which we can send to China to start getting out of debt.

Bailouts were needed at the time, and is not the norm. They should have been a lone, and neither administration really handled it very well. There were plenty of better ways to do it. The rest of the stuff if peanuts.

I was correct in my original statement in regards to freebies and handouts. The banks asked for handouts, they had political clout, and poof they get a handout. It's corruption at it's finest. I don't believe Bush et al that it was necessary.

Ironman wrote:

What a cop-out, and a big load of crap too. It's military, SS, medicare in that order. That's almost the entire budget. Don't forget though, people are paying in to SS and medicare, as are businesses.

We've already discussed the myth that you pay into SS or medicare in another thread. Those are welfare. And the military budget is significantly (I believe a majority?) going to non-direct-military things, like kickbacks to military contractors with political clout.

Ironman wrote:

Well people who think they are morally superior, yet do all the things they demonize others for is very hypocritical and rather ironic too. I guess the irony is lost on you.

I'm not sticking up for corrupt members of either party, and there are plenty ironic hypocrites in both. But it's not relevant to my original point, which is still key, that the voters need a strong moral foundation.

Ironman wrote:

Nope, I got that, still not his job. Bill Cosby has been working on that, we'll let him take it. He is from one of those type of neighborhoods after all and Obama is not. Obama was inspirational there for a while. I think once he saw the truly ugly side of politics there was no more inspiration left.

Maybe not his "job" - but most of the things he does are not required by his job description and he does them anyway. If you go back and look at his pre-Presidential speeches, it was perfectly reasonable to have hopes he would address the moral issues and sectarian divides in the US.

Ironman wrote:

Quote:

If all the votes for a bill are from one party, it's partisan. If it's unanimous, it's bipartisan. (There's a big gray area in the middle of course.)

Nope that just means one party is trying to block everything the other party does regardless of what it is. You can't really be seen to compromise with people after calling them socialist fascist communist Nazi terrorists.

Well if party A is trying to do something horrible, of course party B should try to block it. That's not "regardless of what it is" if it's a principled stance.

He was using that as an example. Nobody said anything about being a fan of daytime talk shows. It's very interesting that you reframe it in that way.

"stop watching Maury Povich (is that even still on?)" was a joke."watch a variety of news sources" was not a joke.

Ironman wrote:

I agree with the rest. Republicans are very bad at math. I remember the days when I thought trickle down worked..... It looks so good on paper, yet nothing ever really trickles down. Not being the world police anymore would knock around 30% off the spending. Letting the tax cuts expire would generate $700B to $1T. You should have a nice surplus at that point which we can send to China to start getting out of debt.

Th problem isn't math, it's guts. No one wants to be the one to cut spending. Also "trickle down" does work - it's also known as "capitalism". (Also we're almost certainly past the peak of the Laffer curve right now, so raising taxes is just going to further hurt the economy and reduce tax revenue.)

I was correct in my original statement in regards to freebies and handouts. The banks asked for handouts, they had political clout, and poof they get a handout. It's corruption at it's finest. I don't believe Bush et al that it was necessary.

Something of that nature had to be done, however I do agree that was not the best way to go about. It was also supposed to be a loan and they didn't even track it. A better plan would have been distributing to consumers who would pay their debts, which would solve the cash problems with the banks. That's only one idea though. I'm just saying that something like that needed to be done, but they went about it the wrong way.

Quote:

We've already discussed the myth that you pay into SS or medicare in another thread. Those are welfare. And the military budget is significantly (I believe a majority?) going to non-direct-military things, like kickbacks to military contractors with political clout.

Wrong people do pay in. Just not enough. That is a problem that needs to be addressed. As for the rest of that you are calling corruption and fraud "welfare". That sounds like spin. It's not what people call welfare.

Quote:

I'm not sticking up for corrupt members of either party, and there are plenty ironic hypocrites in both. But it's not relevant to my original point, which is still key, that the voters need a strong moral foundation.

I never said you were. "Moral foundation" sounds kind of like weasel words for religion. I would say ethics would be a better way to put that.

Quote:

Maybe not his "job" - but most of the things he does are not required by his job description and he does them anyway. If you go back and look at his pre-Presidential speeches, it was perfectly reasonable to have hopes he would address the moral issues and sectarian divides in the US.

That has nothing to do with deadbeat dads specifically. Besides going over morality issues only widens the divide.

Quote:

Well if party A is trying to do something horrible, of course party B should try to block it. That's not "regardless of what it is" if it's a principled stance.

That's a strawman. I said regardless of what it is, and including compromise. Yet you conveniently reframe it as one party stopping the other from doing something bad.

Quote:

"stop watching Maury Povich (is that even still on?)" was a joke."watch a variety of news sources" was not a joke.

Ok I didn't realize it was a joke. The other part I agree with, I've said the same thing myself.

Quote:

h problem isn't math, it's guts. No one wants to be the one to cut spending. Also "trickle down" does work - it's also known as "capitalism". (Also we're almost certainly past the peak of the Laffer curve right now, so raising taxes is just going to further hurt the economy and reduce tax revenue.)

Trickle down does not work. The wealthy just keep it. They are not compelled to spend, because they don't need to. Giving it to the working poor on the other hand, who HAVE to spend it just because they need it for the basics, will stimulate the economy.

We are far from the Laffer curve. Even in the 40's-60's era we weren't quite there. This is one of the most pathetic conservative canards out there. The taxes for the wealthy are lower now than even during the Reagan era. Trickle down leaves us with huge deficits. It did that in the 80's, we got it balanced in the 90's and then when it was employed this last decade it did the same thing.

The widening in the gap between the rich and the poor is directly tied to lowering both the cutoff and percentage of the highest tax margin. You can look at the historical tax margins by year, and compare that with the difference between the lowest and highest paid workers in an average company between the 1940's and now.

Something of that nature had to be done, however I do agree that was not the best way to go about. It was also supposed to be a loan and they didn't even track it. A better plan would have been distributing to consumers who would pay their debts, which would solve the cash problems with the banks. That's only one idea though. I'm just saying that something like that needed to be done, but they went about it the wrong way.

Shrug, I think the only thing that should have been done was let the investment firms fail and then have sweeping prosecutions for gross negligence and fraud.

Ironman wrote:

Wrong people do pay in. Just not enough. That is a problem that needs to be addressed. As for the rest of that you are calling corruption and fraud "welfare". That sounds like spin. It's not what people call welfare.

Corporate welfare is welfare nonetheless. And yea people do sort of pay in, in the same way that people at the bottom of a Ponzi scheme pay in for their future gains.

Ironman wrote:

I never said you were. "Moral foundation" sounds kind of like weasel words for religion. I would say ethics would be a better way to put that.

Hehe, that's funny I was watching some debate, I think maybe the guy who was filling in for Chris Matthews, and something they said reminded me of this conversation, and the fact that secular progressives tend to say "unethical" and not "immoral". Sounds like you agree. But in any case they're all under-taught at the moment.

Ironman wrote:

That has nothing to do with deadbeat dads specifically. Besides going over morality issues only widens the divide.

Yes well the fatherless child thing was just an example of a moral issue the bully pulpit could address, especially given the demographics of those who most unanimously voted for him.

He spent an enormous amount of time speaking divisively about other topics, so it's not like he avoids controversy.

Quote:

That's a strawman. I said regardless of what it is, and including compromise. Yet you conveniently reframe it as one party stopping the other from doing something bad.

Yes, you said "regardless of what it is", and you were wrong, and I gave an example of why you were wrong. The Republicans haven't been stonewalling "regardless", they've been trying (in their opinion) to put the brakes on some really horrific enormous piles of federal overreaching bureaucracy.

Quote:

Trickle down does not work. The wealthy just keep it.

Well, yes, they may keep it. If your goal is to level the playing field and spread the wealth around, then yea it's a foregone conclusion that progressive income tax rates need to be high.

Do you stay awake at night, frustrated that your neighbors might make more money than you? Those scoundrels! :)

Maybe you two should just agree to disagree. I thought I was gonna get sucked back into this by commenting back to froggy but I'm refusing to argue. But this is like the third thread where you two argue a lot about politics and whatnot. Just agree to disagree, you'll both feel better after a couple of days

Shrug, I think the only thing that should have been done was let the investment firms fail and then have sweeping prosecutions for gross negligence and fraud.

Well sure, if you want deflation and another great depression. I was making the assumption that that was undesirable. I agree on the prosecutions though. However some of the misdeeds were not against the law anymore due to less regulation.

Quote:

Corporate welfare is welfare nonetheless. And yea people do sort of pay in, in the same way that people at the bottom of a Ponzi scheme pay in for their future gains.

Corporate welfare is something entirely different that was not even brought up, but yea that's a problem. Still kind of small potatoes though. SS is not a ponzi scheme. It's just poorly run. Here is what they need to do. You know how once you get to $106K, they stop taking SS tax on everything made over that? Well it should kick back in again maybe at $500K. Maybe raise the business part of the tax 2 points, raise individual 1 point.

Quote:

Hehe, that's funny I was watching some debate, I think maybe the guy who was filling in for Chris Matthews, and something they said reminded me of this conversation, and the fact that secular progressives tend to say "unethical" and not "immoral". Sounds like you agree. But in any case they're all under-taught at the moment.

Well it all depends on your understanding of the subtleties of the words. "Morality tends to be even more subjective and can be used to included various cultural and religious taboos that are seemingly arbitrary and completely rejected as meaningless by many people. However, as long as it's not about praying or banning porn and heavy metal, or other such silliness, I think we agree.

Quote:

He spent an enormous amount of time speaking divisively about other topics, so it's not like he avoids controversy.

Or so fox news would have you believe anyway. Actually he seemed to pussy-foot around much more than any president I've seen first hand, Republican OR Democrat. Well at least until the last few months anyway. He's starting to figure out that sort of thing isn't very effective.

Quote:

Yes, you said "regardless of what it is", and you were wrong, and I gave an example of why you were wrong. The Republicans haven't been stonewalling "regardless", they've been trying (in their opinion) to put the brakes on some really horrific enormous piles of federal overreaching bureaucracy.

You're pretty much doing the same thing again. Like I said, they do it on everything, even if it was something they had supported to some extent in the past. Even when compromises were made. The Democrats do that to a point, but they usually cave in the end. However bitching about opposition when in power and bitching about having the right to gum up the works out of power seems to be quite strong regardless of who is in power. Want to hear republicans and Democrats switch arguments? Listen to news stories from when the republicans were in power. Interesting how they all say they opposite of what they say now. It's all spin. 100% pure BS.

Quote:

Well, yes, they may keep it. If your goal is to level the playing field and spread the wealth around, then yea it's a foregone conclusion that progressive income tax rates need to be high.

Do you stay awake at night, frustrated that your neighbors might make more money than you? Those scoundrels! :)

Well I think that underscores the problem. You have bought into a straw man.

The goal is NOT leveling the playing field. That's not even possible. The goal is to stimulate the economy. That by the way, is what trickle down is supposed to do. Progressive taxes is nothing but a work around on the back end for the redistribution of labor. That's when we pay people next to nothing and reap the benefits of lower prices. Corporations of course pocket most of that, but we get a little cut too. It's just the industrialized 1st world version of the sweatshop.

I know that last bit is a joke. However I don't think even remotely like that. I really don't care. Life isn't fair, we can try to make it a little less unfair, but it's never going to be fair, not even close.

I just think someone who makes a little more than me should have to pay just a little bit higher tax rate. Just like I think someone who makes just a little less than me, should pay a little lower rate than I do. Going back to the way the top tax margin was in the 40's and 50's would be nice as well. As it is now greed is rampant and it also puts a huge tax burden on people who are just upper middle class, or at the bottom of the upper class.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum